Deleted

tradedollarnut

.

Early_Milled_Latin_America

hahaha

MsMorrisine

who me?

MsMorrisine

no one mentioned the 22 $5 ?

Early_Milled_Latin_America

@MsMorrisine said:

Was just for laughs I mean most of us are just happy to own the little bitty collections we have.

CoinPhysicist

Obviously it doesn't just take money, it also takes patience. You can't force a coin for sale necessarily. But if I had $1 billion such that I could just outbid my competition for every coin, I could build what I think most people would consider a "Great" collection over 10 or 20 years.

Early_Milled_Latin_America

@KingOfMorganDollar said:

@TheMayor said:
The idea that coin collectors don't find the 1913 Liberty Head nickel or 1804 Bust dollar interesting or that either coin is just "ok" is laughable. I had to double check what website I was on. These are dream coins.

Agreed but I prefer the 1913 and the 1894-S dime. My favorite is the dime the ice cream one. I think that is the name of one of them.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/894517/the-1894-s-ice-cream-cone-dime-picture

MsMorrisine

availability of the right specimens would take patience. then there is the thought that "I'm not paying that kind of money for it.

RichieURich

I thought Jerry Buss owned all 3 - 1804 dollar, 1913 nickel and 1894-S dime, but I might be wrong.

Zoins

@RichieURich said:
I thought Jerry Buss owned all 3 - 1804 dollar, 1913 nickel and 1894-S dime, but I might be wrong.

Eliasberg owned all 4 - 1804 Class I dollar, 1913 nickel, 1894-S dime, 1933 double eagle.

Gazes

My question is alot of wealthy collectors could have bought those two coins so why didnt they?

rec78

Being able to buy any and all the coins I want would actually get kind of boring after awhile. Attending auction after auction knowing that I could get anything I want. I would find another hobby.

jesbroken

Most wealthy people(wealthy enough to afford either of these coins) have a pretty good idea of value and I would assume(big mistake) have a line not willing to cross, even for a rare coin.
Jim

Zoins

@Gazes said:
My question is alot of wealthy collectors could have bought those two coins so why didnt they?

I don’t think a lot of collectors could have bought these. Each coin is generally owned by one person at a time so the only way to get more people owning them is to have more sales turnover and shorter holding periods.

Are you thinking of particular collectors that didn’t own these?

RedCopper

The OP is incorrect
Eliasberg, Reed Hawn and Bruce Morelan each owned both coins

Jimnight

Even wealthy people don't like to spend money.

Zoins

Why didn’t Pogue have a 1913 Liberty Nickel?

2dueces

Even with unlimited wealth I’d still collect what I like, not what others say make a great collection.
I’d still stick with US gold.

BuffaloIronTail

@Lazybones said:
It takes more than money. It takes people willing to sell you those really choice rarities.

Good point! Very true.

Pete

BuffaloIronTail

@KingOfMorganDollar said:
Buy an island then create your own country then mint your own coins. That's the way to go.

With all the "loaded to the gills" people out there, I'm really surprised no one has already done that.

Pete

Early_Milled_Latin_America

@BuffaloIronTail said:

@KingOfMorganDollar said:
Buy an island then create your own country then mint your own coins. That's the way to go.

With all the "loaded to the gills" people out there, I'm really surprised no one has already done that.

Pete

Or try and locate one of the original shekels Judas sold Jesus for that would be a challenge. Was it not 30 pieces gotta be one out there. Or the spear of destiny. I mean why stop at a 1804 dollar.

Early_Milled_Latin_America

@BuffaloIronTail said:

@KingOfMorganDollar said:
Buy an island then create your own country then mint your own coins. That's the way to go.

With all the "loaded to the gills" people out there, I'm really surprised no one has already done that.

Pete

Trouble is protecting that new nation.

Catbert

@KingOfMorganDollar said:

@AlanSki said:
If I had unlimited funds I'd seek top graded classic commems with monster toning.

My main goal would be helping those less fortunate (humans and animals) then hobbies as a far second. Building schools and animal shelters and hospitals and so on and so on then coins. I don't know the person who started this topic so I am not saying he does not do such things I just meant what I would do. To me helping so many people and animals is unique in it's own way.

I don’t know why these collection fantasy threads make some members feel compelled to trumpet their virtue. Nobody cares.

jmlanzaf

Personally, I'm not sure the subjective choice of those two coins should be used to qualify or disqualify anyone.

Would you throw Harry Bass out of the club just because he preferred gold?

abcde12345

@Jimnight said:
Even wealthy people don't like to spend money.

BuffaloIronTail

@Jimnight said:
Even wealthy people don't like to spend money.

Yeppers. I don't spend money cos I ain't got none.

Pete

Gazes

@jmlanzaf said:
Personally, I'm not sure the subjective choice of those two coins should be used to qualify or disqualify anyone.

Would you throw Harry Bass out of the club just because he preferred gold?

One of my first thoughts was was similar--- many high end collectors prefer gold

7Jaguars

Answer to the OP: because they just weren't wonderful enough.

jmlanzaf

@Gazes said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Personally, I'm not sure the subjective choice of those two coins should be used to qualify or disqualify anyone.

Would you throw Harry Bass out of the club just because he preferred gold?

One of my first thoughts was was similar--- many high end collectors prefer gold

Very true.

But no matter what they like, why would they have to buy those 2 particular coins? What if I just had the best dang silver dollar collection ever but didn't care to own a 1913 nickel? What if I had the greatest ancient coin collection ever and just didn't care for U.S. coins?

Look at the Tyrant Collection. There are some tremendous rarities in that collection.

dbldie55

@Zoins said:

@KingOfMorganDollar said:
Buy an island

Larry Ellison and Richard Branson both have nice islands. Ellison’s island is pretty amazing. Wonder if either collects coins?

Yeah, when Larry moved the company head quarters from California to Texas he was asked if he was moving to Texas. He said he had already moved to Hawaii and would be working via zoom. I have never seen anything to indicate he collected coins.

1northcoin

@Zoins said:

@tradedollarnut said:
If all it takes is money to have a great coin collection then why haven’t more wealthy collectors owned both of the top two famous American coins? The original 1804 dollar and the 1913 Liberty Head nickel. To my knowledge, only two: Eliasberg & Reed Hawn.

Opportunity. There are just so many opportunities to pick up one of these coins.

Even more rare than the 1804 dollar and 1913 nickel is how many have owned a 1933 double eagle in the last half century.

Many interesting comments on this thread and kudos to the OP for asking the question to inspire them.

Unless inherited, those who acquire wealth usually do so by being frugal. Even though one with the funds to do so could apparently have at points in time acquired either or both of these coins, there are still self-imposed restraints related to not wanting to over pay and keeping in mind alternatives, including loss of opportunity, with regard to the use of said funds.

Now as to the 1933 Double Eagle, to acquire a legal specimen that was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

tradedollarnut

Why did I choose those two coins? Simple - they’re numbers 1&2 on the Top 100 list

3,4&5 are gold. If you want to settle.

BustDMs

@tradedollarnut said:
....then why haven’t more wealthy collectors owned both of the top two famous American coins? The original 1804 dollar and the 1913 Liberty Head nickel. To my knowledge, only two: Eliasberg & Reed Hawn.

Nice but not regular issues. I would prefer to ignore them and concentrate on the regular issues.

jmlanzaf

@tradedollarnut said:
Why did I choose those two coins? Simple - they’re numbers 1&2 on the Top 100 list

3,4&5 are gold. If you want to settle.

Maybe not on my Top 100. That is still just an opinion. And I don't think failure to aquire them means much of anything about the collector. I think your list of only two people that have owned both proves that.

In fact, you can argue that the Pittman collection or the Tyrant Collection were better than the Eliasberg collection if you include non-U.S. coins.

tradedollarnut

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Why did I choose those two coins? Simple - they’re numbers 1&2 on the Top 100 list

3,4&5 are gold. If you want to settle.

Maybe not on my Top 100. That is still just an opinion. And I don't think failure to aquire them means much of anything about the collector. I think your list of only two people that have owned both proves that.

In fact, you can argue that the Pittman collection or the Tyrant Collection were better than the Eliasberg collection if you include non-U.S. coins.

I made zero inference that failure to acquire either denigrates any collection. I merely found it quite interesting that the number one and number two most famous coins in the United States series have so infrequently both been owned together by collectors.

I have owned both at one time or another and only two other collectors have owned both at the same time. Hansen of course will undoubtedly join that list. I’m surprised he hasn’t already.

WaterSport

Maybe they are both priced out to a point of being unobtainable by the wealth collectors??? If I recall, a couple of these type of over the top coins are not even bought by collectors these days - they are bought by investors...

WS

jmlanzaf

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Why did I choose those two coins? Simple - they’re numbers 1&2 on the Top 100 list

3,4&5 are gold. If you want to settle.

Maybe not on my Top 100. That is still just an opinion. And I don't think failure to aquire them means much of anything about the collector. I think your list of only two people that have owned both proves that.

In fact, you can argue that the Pittman collection or the Tyrant Collection were better than the Eliasberg collection if you include non-U.S. coins.

I made zero inference that failure to acquire either denigrates any collection. I merely found it quite interesting that the number one and number two most famous coins in the United States series have so infrequently both been owned together by so few collectors.

I have owned both at one time or another and only two other collectors have owned both at the same time. Hansen of course will undoubtedly join that list. I’m surprised he hasn’t already.

With due respect, the title of the thread somewhat implies that you aren't a "great collection" if you don't own those two coins.

tradedollarnut

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Why did I choose those two coins? Simple - they’re numbers 1&2 on the Top 100 list

3,4&5 are gold. If you want to settle.

Maybe not on my Top 100. That is still just an opinion. And I don't think failure to aquire them means much of anything about the collector. I think your list of only two people that have owned both proves that.

In fact, you can argue that the Pittman collection or the Tyrant Collection were better than the Eliasberg collection if you include non-U.S. coins.

I made zero inference that failure to acquire either denigrates any collection. I merely found it quite interesting that the number one and number two most famous coins in the United States series have so infrequently both been owned together by so few collectors.

I have owned both at one time or another and only two other collectors have owned both at the same time. Hansen of course will undoubtedly join that list. I’m surprised he hasn’t already.

With due respect, the title of the thread somewhat implies that you aren't a "great collection" if you don't own those two coins.

Nothing of the sort. The title of the thread implies that if all it takes is money [an assertion thrown around on the chat room far to often] then why haven’t more collectors owned both of the two most famous US coins? I frankly was surprised when doing my research on the matter

Desert Moon

I agree with the OP - it takes knowledge to have a great collection at whatever price point one is at. My coins are NOT famous, but they are great nonetheless (to me), built on knowledge.

Best, SH

jmlanzaf

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Why did I choose those two coins? Simple - they’re numbers 1&2 on the Top 100 list

3,4&5 are gold. If you want to settle.

Maybe not on my Top 100. That is still just an opinion. And I don't think failure to aquire them means much of anything about the collector. I think your list of only two people that have owned both proves that.

In fact, you can argue that the Pittman collection or the Tyrant Collection were better than the Eliasberg collection if you include non-U.S. coins.

I made zero inference that failure to acquire either denigrates any collection. I merely found it quite interesting that the number one and number two most famous coins in the United States series have so infrequently both been owned together by so few collectors.

I have owned both at one time or another and only two other collectors have owned both at the same time. Hansen of course will undoubtedly join that list. I’m surprised he hasn’t already.

With due respect, the title of the thread somewhat implies that you aren't a "great collection" if you don't own those two coins.

Nothing of the sort. The title of the thread implies that if all it takes is money [an assertion thrown around on the chat room far to often] then why haven’t more collectors owned both of the two most famous US coins? I frankly was surprised when doing my research on the matter

Then the answer is simple: those two coins do NOT make a collection great. And, perhaps, great collectors are too smart to waste money on them.

tradedollarnut

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Why did I choose those two coins? Simple - they’re numbers 1&2 on the Top 100 list

3,4&5 are gold. If you want to settle.

Maybe not on my Top 100. That is still just an opinion. And I don't think failure to aquire them means much of anything about the collector. I think your list of only two people that have owned both proves that.

In fact, you can argue that the Pittman collection or the Tyrant Collection were better than the Eliasberg collection if you include non-U.S. coins.

I made zero inference that failure to acquire either denigrates any collection. I merely found it quite interesting that the number one and number two most famous coins in the United States series have so infrequently both been owned together by so few collectors.

I have owned both at one time or another and only two other collectors have owned both at the same time. Hansen of course will undoubtedly join that list. I’m surprised he hasn’t already.

With due respect, the title of the thread somewhat implies that you aren't a "great collection" if you don't own those two coins.

Nothing of the sort. The title of the thread implies that if all it takes is money [an assertion thrown around on the chat room far to often] then why haven’t more collectors owned both of the two most famous US coins? I frankly was surprised when doing my research on the matter

Then the answer is simple: those two coins do NOT make a collection great. And, perhaps, great collectors are too smart to waste money on them.

Pffffft.

jmlanzaf

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Why did I choose those two coins? Simple - they’re numbers 1&2 on the Top 100 list

3,4&5 are gold. If you want to settle.

Maybe not on my Top 100. That is still just an opinion. And I don't think failure to aquire them means much of anything about the collector. I think your list of only two people that have owned both proves that.

In fact, you can argue that the Pittman collection or the Tyrant Collection were better than the Eliasberg collection if you include non-U.S. coins.

I made zero inference that failure to acquire either denigrates any collection. I merely found it quite interesting that the number one and number two most famous coins in the United States series have so infrequently both been owned together by so few collectors.

I have owned both at one time or another and only two other collectors have owned both at the same time. Hansen of course will undoubtedly join that list. I’m surprised he hasn’t already.

With due respect, the title of the thread somewhat implies that you aren't a "great collection" if you don't own those two coins.

Nothing of the sort. The title of the thread implies that if all it takes is money [an assertion thrown around on the chat room far to often] then why haven’t more collectors owned both of the two most famous US coins? I frankly was surprised when doing my research on the matter

Then the answer is simple: those two coins do NOT make a collection great. And, perhaps, great collectors are too smart to waste money on them.

Pffffft.

Well, you can't have it both ways. If you aren't implying that you need such coins for a great collection, which you claim you are not, then those coins simply do not make for a great collection.

tradedollarnut

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@tradedollarnut said:
Why did I choose those two coins? Simple - they’re numbers 1&2 on the Top 100 list

3,4&5 are gold. If you want to settle.

Maybe not on my Top 100. That is still just an opinion. And I don't think failure to aquire them means much of anything about the collector. I think your list of only two people that have owned both proves that.

In fact, you can argue that the Pittman collection or the Tyrant Collection were better than the Eliasberg collection if you include non-U.S. coins.

I made zero inference that failure to acquire either denigrates any collection. I merely found it quite interesting that the number one and number two most famous coins in the United States series have so infrequently both been owned together by so few collectors.

I have owned both at one time or another and only two other collectors have owned both at the same time. Hansen of course will undoubtedly join that list. I’m surprised he hasn’t already.

With due respect, the title of the thread somewhat implies that you aren't a "great collection" if you don't own those two coins.

Nothing of the sort. The title of the thread implies that if all it takes is money [an assertion thrown around on the chat room far to often] then why haven’t more collectors owned both of the two most famous US coins? I frankly was surprised when doing my research on the matter

Then the answer is simple: those two coins do NOT make a collection great. And, perhaps, great collectors are too smart to waste money on them.

Pffffft.

Well, you can't have it both ways. If you aren't implying that you need such coins for a great collection, which you claim you are not, then those coins simply do not make for a great collection.

Go troll elsewhere, please.

tcollects

those aren't even on my top 20 list of coolest US coins

MsMorrisine

oh man

thick skin!

SmEagle1795

The opportunity to buy is rarer than money in many cases, especially for flagship coins.

Sure, there are times when one could have made more money in stocks/bitcoin/etc. but in the end, you might end up with a slightly larger sack of cash, and still have a desire to buy a now-unbuyable coin which might not come back around for 20+ years if it went to strong hands.

A larger-than-normal number of rarities have come to market in the last handful of years and I think it's resulted in a biased perception that these coins are "available" regularly... They're not: it's just an odd confluence of events which have brought coins out from otherwise strong hands.

MsMorrisine

anyway, you know this will just turn it into another cheat thread. may as well restore the subject line.

jmlanzaf

@MsMorrisine said:
oh man

thick skin!

I'm still confused by the question.

Early_Milled_Latin_America

The coin of POWER!!

Zoins

@tradedollarnut said:
Why did I choose those two coins? Simple - they’re numbers 1&2 on the Top 100 list

Is that the real reason or is that poetic license?

For these two particular coins, I think a major reason could be that neither are regular issue coins so even if they are 1 and 2 on someone’s list, they may not be 1 and 2 on a particular collector’s list.

Early_Milled_Latin_America

But but what happens if the most PRECIOUS coin the ONE true coin that makes a collection the master of all collections is on another planet or even worse in another galaxy what shall we do. We must build the mother ship of ALL mother ships it must be retrieved no matter the cost!!!

We must get it before it goes into a black hole to be lost forever and ever.